Balancing fertiliser use for higher yields and sustainable agriculture – Ideas for India

Report on Optimizing Fertiliser Use in India for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction: Addressing Agricultural Inefficiency and Environmental Degradation

This report examines the widespread and imbalanced use of chemical fertilisers in Indian agriculture, a practice driven by government subsidies that poses significant challenges to achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While fertiliser use has historically supported food production, its current application pattern undermines progress towards Zero Hunger (SDG 2) by limiting potential crop yields. Furthermore, the overapplication of nitrogen-based fertilisers contributes to environmental degradation, conflicting with goals for Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12), Climate Action (SDG 13), and Life on Land (SDG 15).

The Indian government’s expenditure of US$10-11 billion annually on fertiliser subsidies creates fiscal pressure and distorts market prices, encouraging unsustainable practices. This analysis demonstrates that rebalancing nutrient application, specifically the ratio of potassium to nitrogen, can enhance agricultural productivity without increasing overall costs, offering a pathway to a more sustainable and resilient food system.

2.0 Findings: The Impact of Nutrient Imbalance on Agricultural Productivity (SDG 2)

An empirical study focusing on rice farmers in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, and Odisha reveals a significant imbalance in nutrient application, which directly impacts food security objectives outlined in SDG 2.

• Nutrient Disparity: Nitrogen application is nearly eight times higher than potassium use, with farmers applying over 120 kg of nitrogen per hectare compared to only 15 kg of potassium. This ratio is agronomically suboptimal and limits the complementary effects of different nutrients.
• Potential for Yield Increase: Correcting this imbalance offers substantial productivity gains. The analysis indicates that a one-standard-deviation increase in the potassium-to-nitrogen (K-to-N) ratio is associated with a 16% rise in yields.
• Cost-Neutral Productivity Gain: At median levels of fertiliser use and prices, doubling the K-to-N ratio could increase yields by almost 5% (approximately 0.2 tonnes per hectare per season) without any increase in the farmer’s overall expenditure on fertilisers. This highlights an opportunity to boost food production efficiently.

3.0 Barriers to Sustainable Fertilisation Practices

Several factors contribute to the persistence of nutrient imbalances, hindering the adoption of practices aligned with responsible production (SDG 12) and economic growth (SDG 8).

1. Distorted Price Signals: Differential government subsidies make nitrogen-based fertilisers, particularly urea, significantly cheaper relative to potassium and phosphorus, incentivizing their overuse.
2. Knowledge and Information Gaps: A complementary survey of over 5,000 farmers in Odisha identified a critical lack of awareness regarding the role of different nutrients.
   • Only 26% of knowledge-test questions on fertiliser use and soil health were answered correctly on average.
   • Less than half (45%) of surveyed farmers could correctly identify fertilisers that supply potassium.
   • Farmers with greater knowledge of potassium’s role demonstrated higher plot-level productivity, achieving 1.3 kg/hectare higher yields and generating Rs. 6,909.2/hectare more in net revenue per season. This suggests that improved farmer education is a key lever for change, aligning with Quality Education (SDG 4).
3. Supply Chain Constraints: The geographical distribution of fertiliser production and import infrastructure creates regional variations in availability. Nitrogen fertilisers are produced domestically, while potassium is almost entirely imported, leading to logistical challenges that affect access and cost.

4.0 Policy Recommendations for a Triple Dividend

To align India’s agricultural sector with the SDGs, policy interventions should focus on correcting nutrient imbalances. Such policies can deliver a triple dividend: higher farm productivity (SDG 2), reduced fiscal burden, and improved environmental outcomes (SDG 12, SDG 13, SDG 15).

Recommended Actions:

• Recalibrate Fertiliser Subsidies: Reform the subsidy structure to remove price distortions and encourage the balanced application of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. This is critical for promoting responsible consumption and production patterns (SDG 12).
• Strengthen Farmer Education and Extension Services: Launch educational campaigns to raise awareness about the agronomic and economic benefits of balanced nutrient management. Leveraging digital extension services can provide localized, practical guidance to farmers, contributing to SDG 4.
• Improve Supply Chain Infrastructure: Invest in improving the supply chain for potassium- and phosphorus-based fertilisers, including decentralized warehousing and enhanced port connectivity, to ensure timely and cost-effective availability for farmers.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on fertiliser use in Indian agriculture addresses and connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by discussing the interplay between agricultural productivity, environmental sustainability, economic policy, and farmer education.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  This goal is central to the article, which focuses on improving agricultural yields and productivity. The core argument is that balancing fertiliser use can increase crop yields, directly contributing to food security and the economic well-being of farmers.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article directly addresses this SDG by highlighting the inefficient and unsustainable use of chemical fertilisers. It discusses the overapplication of nitrogen-based fertilisers driven by subsidies and advocates for more efficient use of natural resources (nutrients) and the environmentally sound management of chemicals to reduce negative impacts.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The environmental consequences of imbalanced fertiliser use, such as “soil acidification” and “soil degradation,” are explicitly mentioned. Correcting this imbalance is presented as a way to “mitigate soil degradation,” which aligns with the goal of protecting terrestrial ecosystems and halting land degradation.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  Although a secondary point, the article mentions that correcting the composition of fertiliser use would help mitigate “groundwater contamination,” which directly relates to the goal of improving water quality by reducing pollution.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  The article connects unbalanced fertiliser use to climate change by noting that its overapplication leads to “greenhouse gas emissions.” The proposed solution of balanced fertiliser use is presented as a way to reduce these emissions, contributing to climate change mitigation efforts.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  This goal is relevant because the article identifies a “lack of information” and low farmer knowledge as key barriers to adopting balanced fertilisation practices. It suggests that “farmer education and extension services” are critical policy interventions, linking education directly to sustainable agricultural development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 2.3:

   “By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers…” The article directly addresses this by showing that a more balanced fertiliser application could “raise yields by almost 5%” and increase net revenue for farmers by “Rs. 6,909.2/hectare per season,” thus improving their productivity and income.

2. Target 2.4:

   “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change… and that progressively improve land and soil quality.” The article’s main proposal—balancing fertiliser use—is a sustainable agricultural practice aimed at increasing productivity while mitigating “soil degradation” and reducing “greenhouse gas emissions.”

3. Target 12.2:

   “By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.” The article critiques the inefficient use of nutrients (natural resources) due to the imbalanced application of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. It advocates for a more balanced and efficient use to achieve higher yields without increasing overall fertiliser expenditure.

4. Target 12.4:

   “By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.” The discussion on the negative impacts of over-fertilisation, including “soil acidification, greenhouse gas emissions, and groundwater contamination,” directly relates to this target. The article proposes better management of chemical fertilisers to reduce these environmental releases.

5. Target 12.c:

   “Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption…” The article identifies “differential subsidies across fertiliser types” as a key driver of imbalanced and wasteful fertiliser use. It explicitly mentions that the Indian government spends “US$10 billion and US$11 billion a year on fertiliser subsidies” and recommends that policymakers “recalibrating the current structure of fertiliser subsidies.”

6. Target 15.3:

   “By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by… land degradation, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.” The article’s mention of “soil degradation” and “soil acidification” as consequences of current fertiliser practices connects directly to this target. The proposed solutions aim to improve soil health and mitigate further degradation.

7. Target 4.7:

   “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development…” The article highlights that “farmers have, on average, very limited awareness of the role of potassium” and that knowledge constraints are a major driver of fertiliser imbalance. It advocates for “farmer education and extension services” to disseminate knowledge on sustainable nutrient management.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions and implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

• Agricultural Yields and Revenue (for Target 2.3):

  The article provides specific metrics to measure productivity. Progress can be tracked by measuring changes in:

  • Crop yields (e.g., the potential to “raise yields by almost 5%” or an increase of “0.2 tonnes per hectare per season”).
  • Farmer’s net revenue (e.g., the observed correlation of “Rs. 6,909.2/hectare per season more in net revenue” for knowledgeable farmers).

• Nutrient Use Balance (for Targets 2.4 and 12.2):

  The primary indicator for measuring the efficiency and sustainability of fertiliser use is the “ratio of potassium to nitrogen (K-to-N) in fertiliser application.” The article notes that nitrogen application is currently “almost eight times higher than potassium use.” Tracking this ratio over time would be a direct measure of progress.

• Fertiliser Subsidy Expenditure (for Target 12.c):

  A direct indicator mentioned is the amount of government spending on subsidies. The article states this is currently “between US$10 billion and US$11 billion a year.” A reduction or recalibration of this amount would indicate progress towards rationalizing these subsidies.

• Environmental Impact Metrics (for Targets 12.4, 13, and 15.3):

  While not quantified with specific data in the article, progress could be measured by monitoring:

  • Levels of soil acidification and soil health.
  • Amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector.
  • Levels of nutrient runoff and groundwater contamination.

• Farmer Knowledge Levels (for Target 4.7):

  The article provides direct indicators from its survey data that could be used as a baseline and for future monitoring:

  • The “average correct response rate” on knowledge tests about fertiliser use (currently “only 26%”).
  • The percentage of farmers who can “correctly identify fertilisers that supply potassium” (currently “only 45%”).

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: ideasforindia.in